- 28 Sep 2017 19:34
#14847136
A man of good ideas! Welcome we could use another sane voice here.
Poverty is a Mind Set.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I suppose I could ask why do you feel they should have to earn it?
However, my real answer is that monarchy is the state of nature from the natural and historic development of nations from family units governed by fathers. That is, groups of families, joining together, and intermarrying, are the origin of the nation and the structure of that nation under monarchy is merely a continuation and extension of the natural family model that serves as the basic unit. The king is ethnically related to his people and rules as representative of them as a father over his family, or a lord over his clan. Why this natural structure is preferred to later inventions such as the social contract and democracy is demonstrated by historically observed stability. Monarchies last longer and are more stable and democracies revert back to monarchal or authoritarian systems overtime, we are headed there now.
Not "sole" purpose, but definitely her primary "civic" purpose. When childbearing is abandoned as the primary civic service for women a rise of infertility and social decadence emerges which eventually results in overall civic apathy on the part of the populace, moral decadence, and a need for mass immigration from foreign nations that results in the nation's eventual collapse. There are no exceptions to this as a historical pattern for civilizations and they have all tried it. The expansion of sexual opportunity ALWAYS leads to the collapse of civilizations.
The Anglosphere is, at the least, the United Kingdom, Canada, The United States, Australia, and New Zealand.
I cannot conceive of Trump becoming such a monarch, but if he does and effectively unites the anglosphere in the ways I have outlined, then yes we should. That would be an "Imperium" scenario like the rise of the Caesars in Rome, which were effectively expansionist Monarchs.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
The Pax Romana and Pax Brittanica were not accomplished by pacifism, and as Edmund Burke once said “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Pacifism does nothing and we allow the evils that go on in the middle-east and Africa to continue even though the implementation of our worldview there could solve it. That is the triumph of evil.
Irreligion has never benefited a civilization's survival and people left to their own devices always tend to irreligion, it is therefore in the interest of civilization to promote religion, especially true religion.
That depends on your definition. I affirm that Anglo-Saxon civilization ought to survive and thrive, but historically that is impossible if women have expanded sexual opportunity and political enfranchisement outside of the family role of producing children. So I cannot be pro-civilization, pro-western, pro-Christian, or any such values and support feminism in any sense whatsoever, the two are opposed at their root. I choose Civilization and when its survival is threatened (which is coming soon) most people will end up agreeing with me. The time is coming. buckle up.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:@B0ycey,
Since the majority of your last post contained nothing interesting or original that was not already covered with great sophistication by others, and that the rest of your post demonstrated a clear lack of requisite education, I do not see much to respond to other than to ask you a few questions to demonstrate basic points I thought everyone was aware of.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:1. What is the average rate of birth for native English in England? White Americans in the United States, white Canadians in Canada, white Australians in Australia, native Germans in Germany, native Italians in Italty, native french in France, etc? And how does this compare to the minimum rate of population replacement of 2.1 births per woman?
2. If the European Empires had retained authoritarian control in the middle-east until today, would Islamic regimes have been able to form there and would we have the same rates of immigration and terrorism that we do today, and why?
Or, if you like, answer this instead: do we currently have more problems with terrorism from peoples in countries that we occupy or do not occupy, statistically speaking?
3. How many Hectacres of farmable land do we need to sustain the earth's population and is there enough availabe in the guinea plateau of Africa alone?
4. How many people could we fit comfortably into the state of Texas, assuming we supply each family of four with a home and a small yard?
5. Name one civilization that continued more than four generations after expanding political rights and sexual opportunity to women, without patriarchal revolution or collapse by invasion?
6. Which regime killed the most civilians in human history and which regime killed the second most, were these regimes Christian or even religious? Which regime (different than the two above) killed the highest % of people in the world and was it Christian or religious?
7. Did the rising of the Caesars in Rome (Expansionist Super-Monarchs) emerge from a successful run of smaller monarchies, or from a post-monarchy republican environment following the previous rise and fall of populist politicians?
This claim cannot be substantiated. The Marriage Act in Nazi Germany was arguably the main reason they got out of their depression according to all scholars on the Third Reich and they did exactly what I am suggesting. The reason that Islamic states failed is because they could not maintain western-like economies without western oversight. Think of Egypt, from the time of its Independence from the British until its descent until islamization was barely a couple of decades and its economic contribution to the world did not improve post-colonialism. The problem with the Islamic world is Islam and its adherents, not its views on gender.
Besides, for being such a good papist, you have some pretty "progressive" views on childbearing, I just wonder where you really stand as a supposed greater catholic and traditionalist than I?
Decky wrote:I am proposing following the authentic northern European way of running a society, there a reason we have statues of Boadicea in the UK, you are the one proposing we follow a culturally Islamist path in our treatment of 50% of Europeans not me. Do you also pray towards Mecca I wonder?
B0ycey wrote:Global population is increasing. Sure birth rates in Western nations are below 2 per woman, but so what? We already have global fuel and food shortages. Increase of human population will only create more problems.
B0ycey wrote:Jesus would have been a terrorist to a Roman empire. Also ask yourself why Rome fell. So yes terrorism would have occured even now had European Empires succeeded. As the crusades proves, people don't like being oppressed.
B0ycey wrote:Most terrorists are homegrown. So occupy.
B0ycey wrote:There is actually enough farmable land on earth to feed everyone on the planet. The problem is that the wealthy nations populous eat more than they need to. But a shortage of farmable land is a reason to reduce the global population, not increase it.
B0ycey wrote:Who cares. We have an entire planet to live on. What is the relevence to this?
B0ycey wrote:The UK. I count 6 generations here.
B0ycey wrote:Mao and Stalin. So Communism. What is the difference between a dictator and a monarch? You are advocating suppremacism, not me.
B0ycey wrote:...or the Roman army and their coin. That one.
1. Ethno-Cultural Civic Nationalism.
2. The Domination Impulse.
3. Religious Unity and Justification.
4. Fecundity.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:So,
I am looking for some initial reactions to see what kind of general knee-jerk reactions there are to my position. This is a beta-test. After examining some initial reactions, I will start another thread where I will actually make some argument to spur some debate. I will only observe and ask questions on this thread.
So, I am a Paleo-Colonialist and a Monarchal-Imperialist. I go by Imperialist for short.
The major claims of the position are defined under general claims which are those claims which must be common to all who hold this position in order to qualify as being such. The specific claims refer specifically to what define the particular variety I propose.
I. General Claims.
1. Ethno-Cultural Civic Nationalism.
I am threading the needle on this because my position on this leaves room for some leeway, but it is definitely not "white nationalism" in the specific sense, but does not preclude "elements" of that. Rather, this tenant claims that the identity of a nation is NOT defined by a social contract, but by patriarchal and patrilineal origination of a historical culture that self-identifies as that nation. Hence, families and clans are acknowledged as the historic origin of a people on a particular land, who's national identity originated in history through the manifestation of some common cause and sense of destiny, and as a consequence; a shared culture; including and especially religion. For these reasons, Monarchy is necessary as a monarch represents the heir of the oldest patriarchy in the nation as the natural ruler. Another point in this position is that the "identity" of a person's children is determined by ethno-cultural identity of the father alone, of which the women and children are subsumed and assimilated. This implying that the historic practice of one ethnic group killing the men of another ethnic group and taking all of their women for reproductive purposes, does effectively result in the former ethnic group replacing the latter without committing a simultaneous suicide of its own identity.
2. The Domination Impulse.
This claim states that the rise and fall of civilizations is directly correlated to its expansive energy. Human beings desire not to merely survive, but to thrive and dominate, and this impulse is acknowledged as natural and moral under the proposed position. In order to prevent the nation from collapsing due to decadence and apathy, a nation must always have an exterior purpose that unifies the people to promote its values. A society that focuses on itself will eventually dominate itself through critique and deconstruction until it collapses, this is because the domination impulse must always be satisfied whether against others or against oneself.
3. Religious Unity and Justification.
This domination impulse and cause for expansion, as well as the establishing of those morals necessary (at home and abroad) to sustain such, must be justified by a state supported (or established) faith. In the case of my position, it is a robust Trinitarian and Augustinian Christianity. This is because, without a hearty theological and metaphysical grounds for a sense of morality, destiny, and imperative, the nation comes to question its values and loses steam. Likewise, without a metaphysical and divine grounds for rituals and traditions, cultural cohesion beings to fade away.
4. Fecundity.
For the preserving of a pro-military society, men and women are to have delegated roles, the woman's role is defined in terms of childbirth and women must be taught from an early age that their civic duty and sacrifice for the nation is child-birth, which is likewise, like all other values, religiously justified.
II. Specific Claims.
1. That the Anglo-sphere, and NOT the west or whites in general, represent an Ethno-Cultural Civic Nation-Group and should be unified under the English Monarchy after it has been reformed and restored to an authoritarian and traditionalist state of nature.
2. That the Anglo-Sphere could solve most of the world's "ills" through a re-colonization of its former Empire under fierce military campaign by a militarized and re-masculated culture and then maintained by a rigid governance of occupiers and anglo-sphere settlers.
3. That the restoration of a confessional and traditional Christian faith, to be supported by the state as a medium of citizenship, should be made.
4. That women's suffrage should be retracted, and the state enforcement and incentivization of childbirth made.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:No, you see, this is called "begging the question" (Petito Principii) and is answered by the other questions, if overpopulation is myth and we actually have sufficient resources and room, then the issue with european population cannot be dismissed because of overpopulation, because it is an irrelevant issue. The issue is resource management when its comes to starving people in, lets say, Ethiopia (not overpopulation), but the issue with Europeans is civilizational decline as I have been fucking arguing this whole time. You made blanket statements against my argument that population was not going down and so I was "obviously just stupid" when I was clearly talking about the Anglosphere. Your argument was both a red-herring and a non-sequitur. Major Fail #1. Who's fucking stupid now, ya jagoff.
Ah, a non-violent innocent man who encouraged obedience to Caesar against the rebel-supporting Jewish establishment was a terrorist.....now i've heard everything and it does not help your point at all. Major Fail #2.
You also know nothing about the Crusades, which were primarily a retaliation against Islamic expansion which wiped out almost the entire middle-eastern, Persian, and North African Christian populations (all of which were Christianized regions), took over Visigoth Christian Spain, and were preparing to wipe out the Greek and Anatolian Christians when Alexios I of the Byzantine Empire requested assistance from the West which led to the First Crusade. Major Fail #3.
You are making a false dichotomy, terrorists being homegrown does not imply they are part of the native population. Terrorists now are typically foreigners or second-gen Muslims to these foreigners, but they are not typically from currently occupied states. This implies, that Muslim populations seeking refuge or emigrating to the U.S. are not from occupied lands or that those who do come from those lands had previously been vetted and pacified by occupying forces. The FACT is that most of the terrorist attacks in the U.S. by Muslims have not been perpetrated by Muslims from the lands currently occupied by the U.S. This is a consequence of the occupation, occupied lands are less likely to produce terrorist.....one great proof of this: Iraq. Isis came into existence because of a lack of occupation, not the opposite. Major Fail #4.
You just claimed that there is "enough farmable land" and that there is "a shortage of farmable land" that is a contradiction, so which is it? Major Fail #5
I agree the problem is land management and resource allocation, but that has nothing to do with population and so restricting European population does not follow as a solution, that is a non-sequitur. In fact, given that a huge % of the food that these malnourished Africans do get comes from Europeans, if European populations continue to decrease they will likely lose the necessary tax base (since they are already about to default on their social security systems) to care for these Africans which will only increase their starvation and misery. So in that case, population decrease in Europe will increase suffering in Africa especially since the Africans have a high rate of birth. However, if to solve our tax problem we require African and Islamic immigrants to Europe, we will find that they will turn Europe into a third world shit hole. We have seen this in the formerly white-ruled states of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and South Africa which were once first world economies, what makes you think Europe will be different? Only 3% of the migrants in Germany are currently employed full-time and all collect benefits. What do you think is going to happen to the starving Africans then? Will the new Black and Muslim Europeans create an awesome economy to send them food aid like we are doing currently once white Europeans go extinct? The historical evidence does not support such a ridiculous notion Major Fail #6
You claim that we are overpopulated, but everyone in the world could fit in Texas comfortably. The point is that colonialism is the only way to get food to Africans, and not decreasing the European population. The starving parts of the world starve because they cannot create healthy economies, are constantly in a state of genocidal war, have rulers so corrupt that they make Hilary Clinton look like the Holy Virgin, and are incapable of sustainable land management and food production. African starvation was not such an issue under Imperial rule, and only with this rule could first world standards return to Africa. This is just a fact, there is no exception to the contrary. First world standards, even for the blacks in Africa, only existed when whites ruled there. Their sorry state now has nothing to do with overpopulation, in fact, these areas have some of the lowest population densities in the world.
Major Fail #7.
The United Kingdom has not had six generations since the sexual revolution you Twat. 1,000 years is 40 generations (roughly), even if we go back to women's suffrage in the UK during 1928, we are talking roughly three and that is still not full sexual and political opportunity, that did not occur in the Anglosphere until the 1960s, which is two generations. These Labor-Party voting women are a huge reason that the Empire went from its highest state in 1920s to its dismal state of today. The correct answer, is that none have survived and we can now see how our nations are doing after women's rights....great huh? Major Fail #8
No, you are dodging. You attacked my argument for the religious justification of empire by saying religion was the source of all the problems, wars, etc. But it was Atheism that has killed the most people, not Christianity, so if anything, religion is the answer to genocide, not secularism, for secularism holds the gold and silver medals for genocide and if we include the syncretic and secular Mongols which had the highest % of people killed, then secularists would hold the Gold, Silver, and Bronze. So how do you like them apples? Major Fail #9
The Roman Army supported the Caesars, but the population almost revolted over Caesar's death, they loved him and hated the Senate. It was disillusion with the republic that led to the return of an authoritarian monarchy system, a hatred for the Senate which began when the Senate had the beloved Gracchi executed for trying to "Make Rome Great Again." In our day, Trump & Farage are not the Caesars, they are the Gracchi which point to the Caesar yet to come.
The fact is, people do not trust the representative government anymore, they are turning to charismatic strong men to fix things. This is the where the signs for the return of my position are becoming clear. You dissed this view by saying that monarchy was visibly in decline so saying it was going to make a comeback was B.S., but that is the proof, there has not been an effective monarchy in Europe for almost 100 years because it was replaced with Republicanism, some countries for almost 250 years have been republics now, but we can now see that the people are getting tired of it, just like in Rome. Once again, you are wrong. Major Fail #10.
B0ycey wrote:Nonetheless, can I ask, do you REALLY want the US to have a monarchy, the very thing it fought a war in expelling? And if so, what do you think the 'strong men' of Farage and Trump would think if the next in line was a weak individual who wanted to turn America into 60's Woodstock and disarm its military to stick and stones for the name of peace? Remember, you do not choose a monarch. It is born privilege. You are not guaranteed the next Joffery, Caesar or Trump. You could end up with Gandhi.
@FiveofSwords Why will an accountant make a be[…]
What do the tweets say? Read them? They have ex[…]
Dude, YouTube is your source? You are not a serio[…]